LETTER 

TO  THE 

CHAMBER  OF  COMMERCE 

RELATIVE  TO  THE 

'SjSfctier  Hfrmxt  of  tht  (£itij 

OP 
BT 

Simon  Stevens. 


Avery  Architectural  and  Fine  Arts  Library 
Gift  of  Seymour  B.  Durst  Old  York  Library 


LETTER 


TO  THE 

CHAMBER  OF  COMMERCE 

RELATIVE  TO  THE 

ISIato  ffvowt  of  ttte  C^ittj 


or 


BY 

Simon  Stevens. 


61  Broadway,  New  York, 
May  6,  1885. 

James  M.  Brown,  Esq., 

President  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce, 

New  York. 

Sir  :— 

I  desire  to  present  to  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  some  state- 
ments as  to  the  condition  of  the  piers  and  wharves  of  the  New  York 
water  front,  and  to  ask  serious  consideration  of  questions  affecting 
the  commerce  of  this  port,  controlled,  to  some  extent,  by  the  City 
of  New  York,  acting  officially  by  the  Department  of  Docks,  which 
Department  exercises  the  rights,  powers  and  duties  of  the  Corpora- 
tion in  improving  the  water  front. 

By  virtue  of  the  Dongan  charter,  in  1686,  the  Crown  of  Eng- 
land granted  to  the  City  of  New  York,  then  a  municipal  corpora- 
tion, all  the  land  between  high  and  low  water  mark  around  the 
Island  of  Manhattan,  with  jurisdiction  over  the  same,  with  power 
to  take  in,  fill  and  make  up  and  lay  out  all  and  singular  the  laud 


and  grounds  in  and  about  said  City  and  Island  Manhattan,  and  the 
same  to  build  upon  or  make  use  of  in  any  other  manner  or  way  as 
to  them  shall  seem  fit,  as  far  into  the  rivers  thereof,  and  that 
encompass  the  same,  as  low  water  mark  aforesaid. 

By  the  Montgomerie  Charter,  in  1730,  the  Crown  further 
granted  a  strip  of  land,  four  hundred  feet  in  width,  lying  immedi- 
ately outside  of  low  water  mark,  extending  from  Corlear's  Hook 
(now  Jackson  Street),  on  the  East  River,  around  the  southern  ex- 
tremity of  the  Island  to  Bestaver's  rivulet  (excepting,  however,  the 
space  in  front  of  the  Battery),  with  full  power  and  authority  at  any 
time  thereafter  to  fill,  make  up,  wharf,  and  lay  out  all  and  every 
part  thereof,  and  to  take  the  wharfage,  and  cranage  and  dockage 
arising  or  accruing  therefrom  ;  but  it  was  provided  in  said  charter 
that  nothing  therein  contained  should  empower  or  entitle  the  city 
to  wharf  out  before  any  persons  who  had  prior  wharf  grants  beyond 
low  water  mark,  without  the  actual  agreement  or  consent  of  such 
persons,  and  that  of  the  wharfs  to  be  built  or  run  out  by  the  city, 
there  should  be  left,  towards  the  East  and  North  rivers,  forty  feet 
broad  for  the  convenience  of  trade  and  the  planting  of  batteries  in 
case  of  necessity. 

Under  these  charters  the  City  of  New  York  took  the  fee  of 
the  land  under  water  and  the  rights  to  build  wharves  and  docks 
thereon,  and  to  take  and  have  the  wharfage  accruing  therefrom, 
and  at  an  early  day  made  many  grants,  to  divers  private  persons,  of 
these  same  lands  under  water,  with  the  right  to  said  private  parties 
to  make  wharves,  and  take  the  wharfage,  dockage,  cranage,  emolu- 
ments, etc.,  accruing  therefrom  ;  such  grants  extended  out  into 
the  rivers  to  unequal  distances,  within  the  ownership  of  the  city. 

It  is  admitted  that  by  the  act  of  April  3d,  1798,  as  well  as 
under  acts  prior  thereto,  general  authority  was  conferred  upon  the 
city  to  lay  out  and  construct  wharves,  and  the  general  system 
seems  to  have  been  for  the  city  to  convey  the  lands  under  water  to 
individuals,  requiring  them  to  fill  up  the  land  and  construct 
wharves,  with  the  right  to  receive  the  wharfage  and  other  emolu- 
ments and  advantages  arising  therefrom,  which  system  was  re- 
peatedly recognized  by  the  Legislature. 

The  fifteenth  section  of  the  Act  passed  April  3,  1807,  contains 
this  preamble  :  "  And  whereas,  for  the  purpose  of  duly  regulating 
and  constructing  slips  and  basins,  and  for  running  out  wharves  and 


3 


piers,  it  is  essential  that  the  right  to  the  land  under  water,  below 
low  water  mark,  should  be  vested  in  the  corporation  of  the  city  of 
New  York."  And  to  accomplish  the  purpose  thus  indicated,  the 
act  authorized  the  Commissioners  of  the  Land  Office  to  grant  to  the 
city,  forever,  the  land  under  water  described  in  the  act.  While 
the  land  was  to  be  granted  to  the  city  to  enable  it  to  regulate  and 
construct  wharves,  etc.,  the  final  clause  of  the  section  recognized 
the  right  and  power  of  the  city  to  grant  the  lands  to  individuals  to 
accomplish  the  purpose  intended,  by  giving  the  pre-emptive  right 
to  the  proprietors  of  the  adjacent  uplands. 

Under  the  two  charters  and  the  course  of  legislation  referred 
to,  the  city  acquired  all  the  title  to  the  land  granted,  which  the 
Crown  of  England  or  the  State  could  convey,  and  it  also  acquired 
all  the  rights  to  fill  up  such  lands,  and  build  wharves  thereon  and 
receive  the  wharfage  and  other  advantages  therefor,  which  the  sov- 
ereign authority  could  give  it. 

Taking  the  language  of  the  charters  and  grants,  the  course  of 
legislation,  and  all  the  Statutes  in  pari  materia,  the  situation  of 
the  lands  granted  and  the  use  to  which  many  portions  of  them  had, 
with  the  knowledge  and  consent  of  the  Legislature,  been  from  time 
to  time  devoted,  it  is  clear  that  the  lands  under  water  around  the 
city  were  conveyed  to  it  in  fee  to  enable  it  to  fill  them  up  as  the 
interest  of  the  city  might  require,  and  to  regulate  and  control  the 
wharf  and  wharfage. 

Whatever  title  and  property  rights  the  city  thus  obtained  it 
could  transfer  and  convey  to  individuals.  Having  the  power  to 
extend  the  rvpa  around  the  city,  and  thus  make  dry  land,  it  could 
authorize  any  individual  to  do  it.  Whatever  wharfs  and  docks  it 
could  build  it  could  authorize  individuals  to  build,  and  Avhatever 
wharfage  it  could  take  it  could  authorize  individuals  to  take.  Its 
dominion  over  the  lands  under  water,  for  the  purpose  indicated  in 
the  preamble  contained  in  Section  15,  above  cited,  was  complete. 

It  has  always  been  admitted  that  the  grants  made  by  the  city 
to  private  individuals  vested  in  them  severally  the  absolute  fee  of 
the  land  granted  ;  and  that  they  could  fill  up  the  land  under  water 
and  thus  become  the  owners  of  the  dry  land  ;  and  it  has  also  been 
admitted  that  said  grantees  or  their  successors  in  title  did  fill  up 
the  said  land  under  water  so  as  to  make  it  dry  land  and  built  the 
streets,  wharves,  and  piers  as  provided  or  covenanted  for  in  said 


4 


grants,  or  prescribed  by  city  ordinances,  and  have,  at  their  own 
proper  cost  "  forever  thereafter  upheld,  maintained,  sustained, 
kept  them  in  good  and  sufficient  manner  and  condition  "  ;  and 
that  South  and  West  Streets  have  always  been  for  the  free  and 
common  use  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New  York.  The 
grantees  or  their  successors  in  title,  having  observed,  performed, 
fulfilled  and  kept  according  to  the  true  meaning  and  purport,  the 
covenants  reserved  in  said  grants,  the  said  several  acts  of  the  Leg- 
islature and  the  ordinances  of  the  Common  Council  in  relation 
thereto  from  time  to  time,  thus  became  entitled  to  and  did 
take  and  now  hold  to  their  own  proper  use  all  and  all  manner  of 
wharfage,  dockage,  cranage,  average  profits,  benefits,  and  advan- 
tages arising  therefrom  forever. 

The  grants  made  by  the  city,  to  private  persons,  of  land  be- 
tween high  and  low  water  mark  which  it  had  acquired  by  the 
Dongan  Charter,  were  generally  uniform  in  character.  As  a  speci- 
men of  such  grants,  I  refer  you  to  one  given  to  Miles  Foster, 
October  12,  1698,  recorded  in  the  Comptroller's  Office  with  other 
Water  Grants. 

For  grants  made  by  the  city  under  the  Montgomerie  Charter 
in  1768  to  1771,  only  to  parties  having  pre-emptory  rights  on 
Water  Street,  which  were  generally  of  uniform  character,  I  refer 
you  to  the  Elizabeth  Richards  grant  of  July  10,  1769. 

For  a  series  of  grants,  all  of  a  similar  character,  made  by  the 
city  to  private  parties  having  pre-emptory  rights  on  Front  Street, 
between  Old  Slip  and  Cotfee  House  Slip  (now  Wall  Street), 
see  the  one  to  Theophilact  Bache,  dated  March  21,  1775. 

These  two  grants,  one  to  Elizabeth  Richards,  and  the  other  to 
Theo.  Bache,  embraced  in  their  length  the  whole  width  of  the  400 
feet  of  "land  under  water"  laying  out  beyond  Dock  and  Water 
Streets,  acquired  by  the  city  under  the  Montgomerie  Charter. 
Upon  the  outer  end  of  said  lands  thus  granted,  a  street  of  40  feet 
in  width  was  to  be  built  by  the  grantees,  and  to  be  known  as 
South  Street. 

In  1795,  when  it  was  proposed  to  make  South  and  West 
Streets  70  feet  wide  instead  of  40  feet,  it  was  ascertained  by 
investigation  that  the  Common  Council  could  not  compel  the 


5 


proprietors  to  build  South  Street  70  feet  wide,  because  the  ad- 
ditional 30  feet  would  be  upon  land  under  water  belonging  to  the 
State,  outside  of  their  grants,  and  to  which  the  city  then  had  no 
title.  In  consequence  of  the  foregoing  state  of  facts  the  Common 
Council,  on  the  12th  of  February,  1798,  petitioned  the  Legislature 
of  the  State  of  New  York,  which  petition  represented  that  "as 
well  for  the  ornament  and  improvement  of  the  city  as  for  the 
encouragement  of  the  trade  and  commerce  of  the  State  and  the 
safety  of  the  shipping  at  the  wharfs  of  the  city/'  for  a  confirm- 
ation of  the  city's  acts  in  ordering  a  street  of  seventy  feet  in 
width  to  be  made. 

The  same  petition  further  represented  that  part  of  the  plan 
of  the  petitioners  was  to  extend  piers  at  right  angles  from  the 
permanent  streets  into  the  rivers,  so  constructed  as  to  admit  the 
currents  at  both  ebb  and  flow  in  both  rivers  to  wash  away  all  dirt 
and  filth  from  the  wharfs  and  thereby  render  the  health  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  city  more  safe  and  secure.  This  petition  also 
represented  that  the  Common  Council  had  doubts  as  to  its 
authority  to  compel  individual  proprietors  of  the  wharfs  to  sink 
and  lay  out  those  piers,  without  incurring  a  breach  of  the  con- 
ditions and  covenants  contained  in  the  grants  to  individuals. 

In  response  to  this  petition  the  Legislature,  on  the  3d  day  of 
April,  1798,  passed  "  An  Act  concerning  certain  streets,  wharfs 
and  piers,  &c,  in  the  City  of  New  York.    See  Laws,  1798. 

The  Act  reciting  in  several  whereases,  substantially  the  body  of 
the  petition  of  the  Common  Council,  provided  that  the  city  might 
lawfully  lay  out  according  to  such  plans  as  it  shall  or  may  agree 
upon  or  determine,  such  streets  or  wharves  as  in  the  petition  men- 
tioned, in  front  of  those  parts  of  the  city  which  adjoin  to  the  said 
rivers,  and  of  such  extent  along  these  rivers  respectively  as  they 
may  think  proper,  and  authorized  the  city  to  lengthen  and  extend 
the  streets  and  wharves,  according  to  said  plan  by  and  at  the 
expense  of  the  proprietors  of  land  adjoining  or  nearest  and  oppo- 
site to  the  said  street  or  wharves  in  proportion  to  the  breadth  of 
their  several  lots,  and  provided  penalties  for  those  who  omitted  or 
refused  to  fill  up  and  level,  at  their  own  expense,  according  to 
such  plan  and  within  the  time  prescribed. 

The  same  Act  provided  that  the  city  could  direct  piers  to  be 
sunk  and  completed  at  such  distances  and  in  such  manner  as  it 


6 


might  in  its  discretion  think  proper,  in  front  of  the  said  streets  or 
wharves  at  the  expense  of  the  proprietors  of  the  lots  laying  op- 
posite to  the  places  where  such  piers'  shall  be  directed  to  be  sunk. 

And  provided  further  that  every  clause,  covenant  and  con- 
dition in  the  several  grants  of  the  city  to  the  said  proprietors 
respectively,  or  those  under  whom  they  claim,  to  be  kept,  observed 
or  performed  by  the  grantees  respectively,  and  their  heirs,  &c, 
notwithstanding  this  Act,  were  to  and  did  retain  their  full  force 
and  validity  and  were  in  no  manner  to  be  affected  by  the  said  Act 
or  anything  to  be  done  or  performed  in  consequence  thereof ;  and 
as  to  the  city's  rights,  powers  and  privileges  as  grantees  they  were 
not  to  be  broken  or  to  infringe  any  of  the  covenants  or  conditions  on 
their  part. 

It  was  enacted  that  no  building  of  any  kind  or  description 
whatsoever  (other  than  the  said  piers  and  bridges)  shall  at  any 
time  hereafter  be  erected  upon  the  said  streets  or  wharves,  or 
between  them  respectively,  and  the  rivers  to  which  they  respect- 
ively front  and  adjoin. 

On  the  18th  of  May,  1801,  the  Common  Council  requested 
the  Recorder  of  the  city  to  examine  the  law  in  regard  to  many  of 
the  grants  then  under  consideration,  and  he  reported  that  neither 
the  Act  of  1798  nor  any  Act  vested  in  the  Corporation  any  title  to 
land  outside  of  the  400  feet  granted  by  the  Montgomerie  Charter, 
nor  with  any  right  to  impose  a  quit-rent  of  such  land. 

In  1803  sundry  citizens,  owners  of  water  lots  on  East  River, 
petitioned  for  authority  to  build  piers  under  the  Act  of  1798  and 
the  ordinances  of  the  Common  Council.  Their  petition  was 
granted  and  piers  were  built  accordingly,  and  the  wharfage  and 
other  emoluments  thereof  are  enjoyed  by  their  successors  in  title 
to  this  day  without  dispute. 

In  1806  the  Legislature  authorized  the  city  to  construct  ad- 
ditional slips  and  basins  and  to  take  itself  the  wharfage  from 
them.  The  first  section  of  said  Act  contains  the  following  pro- 
vision : 

"  Provided  always,  that  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be 
construed  to  deprive  any  person  who  may  have  made  piers  by 
the  direction  of  the  said  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  in 
pursuance  of  an  Act  for  regulating  the  buildings,  streets  and 
wharfs  and  slips  in  the  City  of  New  York,  of  any  legal  right 


7 


which  they  may  have  thereby  acquired,  or  to  interfere  with  any 
private  property  or  right  or  privilege  held  under  grants  of  the  said 
Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  or  otherwise." 

On  the  3d  of  April,  1807,  an  Act  was  passed  in  the  Legis- 
lature relating  to  the  map  or  plan  of  the  City,  wherein  the  XV 
Section  provided  for  the  duly  regulating  and  constructing  slips 
and  basins,  and  for  running  out  wharves  and  piers,  and  declaring 
that  it  was  essential  that  the  right  to  the  land  under  water,  below 
low  water  mark,  should  be  vested  in  the  Corporation  of  the  City 
of  New  York;  but  it  was  "pbovided  always"  therein  also 
"  that  the  proprietor  or  proprietors  of  the  lands  adjacent  shall 
have  the  pre-emptive  right  in  all  grants  made  by  the  Corporation 
of  the  said  city  of  any  lands  under  water  granted  to  the  said  Cor- 
poration under  this  Act." 

The  administration  of  the  city's  affairs,  so  far  as  relates  to 
the  water  front,  about  the  year  seventeen  hundred  and  ninety- 
eight,  assumed  an  even  tenor  and  the  same  was  susbtantially 
followed  up  to  the  time  when  the  Legislature  passed  the  Act  known 
as  Chapter  574  of  the  Laws  of  1871,  to  which  you  are  referred  for 
specific  details. 

In  summarizing  that  Act,  however,  1  may  say  that  the  De- 
partment of  Docks  was  organized  in  1870,  and  by  subdivision  2  of 
Section  6  of  Chapter  574  of  the  Law  of  1871,  to  it  was  given 
exclusive  charge  and  control,  subject  in  certain  particulars  to  the 
approval  of  the  "  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund,"  of  all 
wharf  property  belonging  to  the  Corporation  of  the  City  ui  New 
York,  including  all  the  wharves,  piers,  bulk-heads  and  structures 
thereon,  and  waters  adjacent  thereto,  and  all  the  slips,  basins, 
docks,  water  front  and  land  under  water  and  structures  thereon, 
and  the  appurtenances,  easements,  uses  reversions  and  rights 
belonging  thereto,  to  which  said  Corporation  is  or  may  become 
entitled,  or  which  said  Corporation  may  acquire  under  the  pro- 
visions of  this  law  or  otherwise,  and  said  Department  was  placed 
in  exclusive  charge  and  control  of  the  repairing,  building,  re- 
building, maintaining,  altering,  strengthening,  leasing  and  pro- 
tecting said  property,  and  every  part  thereof,  and  of  all  the 
cleaning,  dredging  and  deepening  necessary  in  and  about  the 
same,  and  the  said  Department  was  also  invested  with  the 
exclusive  government  and  regulation  of  all  wharves,  piers,  bulk- 


8 


,  heads  and  structures  thereon,  and  waters  adjacent  thereto,  and  all 
the  basins,  slips  and  docks  with  the  land  under  water  in  said  city 
not  owned  by  said  Corporation. 

By  subdivision  4  of  said  Section  6  of  Chapter  574  of  Laws  of 
1871,  the  Department  of  Docks  was  authorized  to  acquire,  in  the 
name  and  for  the  benefit  of  the  Corporation  of  the  City  of  New 
York,  any  and  all  wharf  property  in  said  city  to  which  the  Cor- 
poration of  the  City  of  New  York  then  had  no  right  or  title,  and 
any  rights,  terms,  easements  and  privileges  pertaining  to  any 
wharf  property  in  said  City,  and  not  owned  by  said  Corporation, 
and  said  Board  may  acquire  the  same  either  by  purchase  or  by 
process  of  law.  Said  Board  may  agree  with  the  owners  of  any  such 
property,  rights,  terms,  easements  and  privileges,  upon  a  price  for 
the  same,  and  shall  certify  such  agreement  to  the  Commissioners  of 
the  Sinking  Fund,  and  if  said  Commissioners  approve  of  such 
agreement  said  Board  shall  take  from  such  owners,  at  such  price, 
the  necessary  conveyances  and  covenants  for  vesting  such  property, 
rights,  terms,  easements  or  privileges  in,  and  assuring  the  same  to 
the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  of  the  City  of  New  York 
forever,  and  said  owners  shall  be  paid  from  the  City  Treasury  as 
hereinafter  provided.  If  the  said  Board  shall  deem  it  proper  that 
the  said  Corporation  should  acquire  possession  of  any  such  wharf 
property,  rights,  terms,  easements  and  privileges,  ^f or  which  no 
price  can  be  agreed  upon  between  the  owners  thereof  and  the  said 
Board,  the  said  Board  may  direct  the  Counsel  to  the  Corporation 
of  said  city  to  take  legal  proceedings  to  acquire  the  same  for  the 
Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  of  said  city,  and  the  said 
Counsel  to  the  Corporation  shall  take  the  same  proceedings  to  ac- 
quire the  same  as  are  by  law  provided  for  the  taking  of  private  prop- 
erty in  said  city  for  public  streets  or  places,  and  the  provisions  of 
law  relating  to  the  taking  of  private  property  for  public  streets  or 
places  in  said  city  are  hereby  made  applicable,  as  far  as  may  be 
necessary,  to  the  acquiring  of  the  said  property,  rights,  terms,  ease- 
ments and  privileges,  and  said  Board  is  also  empowered  to  acquire, 
in  like  manner,  the  title  to  lands  under  water  and  uplands  as  shall 
seem  to  said  Board  necessary  to  be  taken  for  the  improvement  of 
the  water  front. 

Subdivision  5  of  Section  6  of  the  same  law  provides  that  when 
the  plans  mentioned  in  subdivision  3  of  the  same  section  shall  have 
been  adopted  by  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund,  the 


9 


Board  of  the  Department  of  Docks  shall  proceed,  according  to  said 
plans,  to  lay  out,  establish  and  construct  wharves,  piers,  bulkheads, 
docks  or  slips,  in  the  territory  or  district  embraced  in  such  plan  or 
plans,  and  in,  and  upon  or  about  the  property  owned  by  the  Mayor, 
Aldermen  and  Commonalty  of  the  City  of  New  York,  without 
interfering  with  the  property  or  rights  of  any  other  person,  except 
so  far  as  may  be  necessary  to  insure  the  safety  and  stability  of  the 
wharves,  piers,  bulkheads,  basins  or  slips,  so  to  be  constructed,  and 
said  Board  may  commence  such  construction  in  sections  of  said  ter 
ritory  or  district,  from  time  to  -.time,  so  as  not  to  seriously  incom- 
mode the  commerce  of  the  City. 

Subdivision  10  of  Section  6  of  the  same  law  authorizes  the  Com- 
missioners of  the  Land  Office  to  convey  by  proper  instruments  in 
writing  necessary  for  the  purpose,  all  the  property,  right,  title  and 
interest  of  the  People  of  the  State  of  New  York  in  and  to  the  land 
under  water  used  and  taken  by  the  said  Board  for  the  construction 
of  wharves,  docks,  piers,  bulkheads,  basins  and  slips,  under  this 
Act,  Avhenever  it  may  be  required  by  said  Board  to  make  such  con- 
veyance to  the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  of  the  City  of 
New  York. 

By  the  same  Act  of  the  Legislature  the  Department  of  Docks 
was  authorized  to  expend  a  sum  not  exceeding  83,000,000  per 
annum,  in  accomplishing  the  purposes  contemplated  by  the  Act. 

Pursuant  to  these  provisions  of  law,  elaborate  surveys  were 
made,  and  plans  prepared,  after  much  study,  and  at  a  great  ex- 
pense, and  were  approved  by  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking 
Fund.  The  works  of  improvement  were  commenced,  but  have 
progressed  slowly  for  the  reason  that  the  claims  of  alleged  owners 
of  private  rights  and  property  were  not  acknowledged  and  respected. 
The  plans  adopted  by  the  Department  of  Docks  contemplated,  in 
brief,  the  widening  of  West  and  South  Streets,  on  the  outer  side, 
by  piling  or  filling  out  into  the  rivers,  so  that  their  total  width 
should  be  250  feet  on  West  Street,  and  200  feet  on  South  Street, 
and  the  building  of  new  piers  generally  of  greater  width  and  length 
than  those  now  existing  It  will,  of  course,  be  seen  that  to  carry 
out  this  plan  practically  involves  the  demolition  of  all  the  old  exist- 
ing piers  and  bulkheads,  within  its  limits,  whether  public  or 
private. 

The  piers  and  bulkheads  along  the  water  front  of  the  City  of 
New  York,  although  they  are,  with  few  exceptions,  like  the  streets 


10 


of  the  city,  public  structures  in  their  nature  and  in  their  uses,  yet 
they  have  one  characteristic  of  private  property,  which  constitutes 
their  whole  value  as  such — that  is,  that  the  "wharfage"  arising 
from  them  belongs  to  their  respective  owners. 

These  private  rights  all  arose  under  one  system  and  in  substan- 
tially the  same  manner. 

Shortly  before  the  beginning  of  the  present  century,  about  the 
year  1798,  a  system  of  piers  and  bulkheads  came  into  existence, 
resulting  from  the  concurrent  action  of  the  City  Government  and 
the  Legislature,  and  that  system  prevailed  up  to  the  time  of  the 
adoption  of  the  plans  of  1871.  It  contemplated  the  establishment 
of  70  foot  exterior  streets  (the  present  West  and  South  Streets),  and 
the  extension  of  piers  therefrom.  The  title  to  the  water  lots  ex- 
tending to  these  streets  was  generally  in  the  city,  and  sometimes 
also  the  land  beyond  them  on  which  the  piers  were  built.  The  Act  of 
the  Legislature  gave  permission  for  the  establishment  of  the  street 
where  it  should  rest  on  public  ungranted  land  under  water  belong- 
ing to  the  State,  and  provided  for  the  building  of  the  piers  by 
private  owners  of  water  lots  on  the  exterior  streets,  with  the  per- 
mission of  the  City  Government,  and  for  the  retention  of  wharfage 
by  them  as  a  recompense  for  doing  so,  and  the  city,  in  its  grants 
of  these  water  lots,  provided  that  the  grantees  should  build  the  ex- 
terior streets,  and  should  have  the  wharfage  and  cranage  forever 
that  should  arise  from  them,  or  from  the  bulkheads  built  along 
their  outer  edge,  and  enforced  and  permitted  the  building  of  bulk- 
heads and  piers  by  resolution  of  the  Common  Council. 

Under  this  system  nearly  all  the  waterfront,  including  exterior 
streets,  bulkheads  and  piers,  was  built  up.  In  some  cases  the  city 
authorities  did  not  make  any  private  grant  of  the  right,  but  built 
the  structures  themselves  with  public  money,  and  so  retained  the 
whole  wharfage,  or  else  joined  with  the  private  owners  and  retained 
a  part,  so  that  many  of  the  piers  and  bulkheads,,  in  whole  or  in 
part,  became  and  still  are  city  property. 

But  all  the  private  wharfage  rights  along  the  water  front  were 
the  result  of  "  water  grants,"  to  aid  the  building  of  the  exterior 
streets  and  piers  by  private  owners,  by  the  authority  of  the  Legis- 
lature, and  of  the  City  Government,  under  the  provisions  of  their 
acts.    It  cannot  be  doubted  that  these  rights  were  the  "  property" 


11 


which  the  lawmakers  had  in  view,  and  for  the  acquisition  of  which, 
by  purchase  or  condemnation,  they  made  provision  by  the  Act  of 
1871. 

Within  a  short  time  after  the  adoption  of  the  new  plans,  under 
the  laws  of  1871,  the  Department  of  Docks  commenced  to  put 
them  into  execution  by  destroying  the  old  piers  and  filling  up  the 
old  slips.  In  this  work  no  recognition  was  made  in  any  instance 
of  the  rights  of  private  owners  whose  wharves  and  piers  were 
demolished  or  made  useless.  On  the  contrary,  the  position  was 
taken  by  the  Department,  under  advice  of  the  then  Counsel  to  the 
Corporation,  that  its  powers,  under  the  law,  were  so  extended  that 
all  private  rights  thus  interfered  with  were  not  "perpetual"  in 
their  nature,  but  were  subject  to  be  terminated  at  the  city's  will 
and  pleasure.  It  was  insisted  that  these  private  rights  were  not 
meant  to  be  permanent  when  they  were  created,  that  neither  the 
city  nor  the  State  had  power  to  grant  permanent  .rights,  and  that 
therefore  these  grants  contained  necessarily  an  implied  reservation 
of  power  by  the  city  or  State  to  terminate  the  rights  under  them 
at  any  time,  by  filling  up  in  front  of  them  whenever  it  should  be 
the  judgment  (whim  or  caprice,  whatever  it  may  be  called)  of  the 
authorities,  that  it  was  necessary  or  advisable  to  do  so. 

In  support  of  this  contention,  it  was  urged  that  the  "  grants" 
did  not  contain  the  word  "forever  "  or  some  equivalent  expression, 
but  generally  were  for  the  wharfage  arising  from  the  structure  to 
be  erected,  and  that  thereby  it  was  the  intention  of  the  grantor  to 
leave  the  rights  of  the  private  owners  to  the  mercy  of  the  city 
authorities  whenever  it  chose  to  demolish  these  structures. 

It  may  readily  be  supposed  that  when  the  city  authorities 
began  to  put  these  ideas  into  practical  execution,  on  West  Street 
between  Canal  and  West  Eleventh  Street,  the  property  owners 
did  not  delay  in  taking  measures  for  the  protection  of  their 
rights.  Some  few  permitted  the  invasion  and  brought  suits  or 
made  claims  against  the  city  for  the  resulting  damage.  In  the 
majority  of  cases,  however,  a  preventive  remedy  was  availed  of,  so 
that,  after  a  time,  it  became  the  regular  course  for  the  Department 
of  Docks  to  commence  to  fill  the  s^ip  or  drive  piles  in  front  of  it, 
and  for  the  wharf  owner  to  obtain  a  preliminary  injunction  from 
the  Court  against  its  action.  After  a  while,  the  Department, 
seeing  that  its  operations  were  constantly  interfered  with,  ceased 


12 


to  prosecute  the  work  of  improvement  in  that  manner.  Of  the  various 
suits  that  have  been  brought,  several  have  come  before  the  Courts. 
One,  involving  the  rights  in  the  water  front  on  the  North  River, 
between  26th  and  27th  Streets,  has  been  argued  in  the  United  States 
Circuit  Court  and  decided  adversely  to  the  city.  The  same  result 
has  been  reached  in  the  same  Court  in  a  suit  involving  a  slightly 
different  state  of  facts  on  the  East  River,  between  49th  and  51st 
Streets.  The  only  one  of  all  the  suits  brought  that  has  ever  reached 
the  Court  of  last  resort  in  this  State,  is  that  of  Langdon  against 
the  Mayor,  etc.,  decided  early  in  October,  1883.  This  litigation 
involved  the  rights  of  the  successors  to  the  title  of  John  Jacob 
Astor,  under  grant  to  him  in  1810,  of  a  water  lot  at  the  northeast 
corner  of  West  and  King  Streets.  This,  suit,  after  a  decision  favor- 
able to  the  city  by  the  single  judge  who  first  heard  it,  and  a  reversal 
of  that  decision  on  appeal  to  the  General  Term,  was  carried  to  the 
Court  of  Appeals  by  the  city,  and  the  judgment  of  the  General 
Term  was  affirmed  by  a  unanimous  Court  and  the  position  of  the 
private  owners  was  fully  sustained. 

Several  points  were  settled  by  the  opinion  of  the  Court  in 
this  case  : 

1.  That  grants  of  wharfage  to  accrue  from  wharves 
built  by  private  parties,  made  under  the  water  front  system 
in  question,  whether  made  by  the  Legislature  or  by  the 
city,  are  perpetual  in  their  duration  and  not  revokable  by 
the  action  of  the  public  authorities. 

2.  The  private  rights  created  by  these  acts  are  in  their 
nature  "property,"  and  are  protected  by  the  Constitution. 

3.  Not  only,  therefore,  was  it  not  the  intention  of  the 
Legislature  that  these  rights  should  be  over-ridden  by  the 
powers  conferred  by  the  Acts  of  1870-1871,  but  they  are 
constitutionally  protected  from  such  a  result  ;  and,  more- 
over, it  was  the  design  of  the  Legislature  that  compensation 
should  be  made  for  them  when  they  were  interfered  with. 

In  the  case  in  question  the  only  thing  involved  was  a  "  Bulk- 
head Grant"  along  West  Street.  The  decision  is,  of  course,  an 
authority  so  far  as  the  facts  gb.  There  was  no  pier,  so  that  if 
there  were  any  substantial  difference  between  the  character  of  the 
grants  under  which  piers  were  built,  the  question  as  to  the  piers 
would  not  have  been  decided. 


13 


But  all  these  grants,  both  of  piers  and  bulkheads,  are  essen- 
tially similar,  the  only  difference  being  that  the  grants  of  bulk- 
heads are  evidenced  by  a  sealed  instrument  and  those  of  piers  by 
Act  of  the  Legislature  and  a  resolution  of  the  Common  Council. 
And  the  application  of  the  decision  is  equally  forcible  whether  the 
land  under  water  in  front  of  the  bulkheads  belongs  to  the  State  or 
the  city.  The  Court  expressly  says  in  the  Langdon  Case  that 
grants  of  this  character,  if  made  by  the  State  are  as  permanent 
and  as  binding  as  if  made  by  the  city.  And  all  the  piers  that  the 
city  had  granted  it  has  granted  under  the  direction  and  as  the 
agent  of  the  State.  Hence,  the  absurdity  of  supposing  an  inten- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  authorities  to  give  the  character  of  per- 
manency and  that  status  of  "property"  to  the  private  rights  in 
some  of  the  wharf  structures,  and  denying  it  to  others  erected 
under  the  same  system,  is  manifest  at  once. 

The  Law  Department  of  the  city,  however,  refuses  to  accept 
the  effect  of  this  decision  in  any  case  except  where  the  facts  are 
precisely  identical  with  those  then  before  the  Court.  They  refuse 
to  extend  its  application  to  other  cases  to  which,  by  clear  analogy, 
it  may  properly  be  extended. 

Acting  under  the  decision  in  the  Langdon  case  the  Depart- 
ment of  Docks  has  only  purchased  about  450  feet  on  North  River 
below  Canal  Street.  The  private  owners  who  have  obtained  injunc- 
tions are  well  satisfied  with  the  condition  of  affairs  and  do  not  care 
to  take  any  affirmative  steps.  It  would  take  years  to  bring  any  other 
existing  litigation  involving  these  questions  to  a  final  hearing 
either  in  the  Court  of  Appeals  or  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  except  by  an  agreed  case. 

Such  being  the  condition  of  affairs,  no  substantial  progress 
will  be  made  so  long  as  the  city  law  authorities  continue  in  their 
present  attitude.  Their  condition  is  a  constant  menace  to  the 
wharf  and  pier  owners.  Capitalists,  with  characteristic  timidity, 
will  not  purchase  their  rights,  and  could  not  improve  them  if 
they  had  them,  without  the  consent  of  the  Dock  Department. 

The  Department  of  Docks  has,  since  its  organization  in  1870 
up  to  May,  1884,  expended  a  total  of  $10,773,363.93,  which  in- 
cludes the  sum  of  $203,530  paid  for  the  Inman  Pier  on  North 
River  purchased  by  the  city,  and  includes  also  the  cost  of  widening 


♦ 


14 

and  paving  West  Street  180  feet,  between  Canal  and  West  10th 
Streets,  a  distance  of  nearly  3,000  feet,  and  building  fifteen  new 
piers.  The  damages  to  private  property  in  that  locality  yet  remain 
to  be  settled  and  paid. 

In  the  same  time  the  city  has  received  from  leased  wharfs  and 
wharfages;  the  sum  of  $10,365,215.99,  only  $408,147.94  less  than 
the  gross  receipts.  The  receipts  from  wharfage  and  leases  for  the 
year  ending  May  1,  1884,  amounted  to  $1,246,858.19,  and  the  ex- 
penditures for  the  same  time  amounted  to  $760,106.80,  which  is 
$486,751.39  less  than  receipts  for  that  year. 

Since  May  1st,  1884,  the  city  has  acquired  425  feet  of  bulk- 
head on  North  River  between  Harrison  and  Hubert  Streets,  at  a 
cost  of  $260,562.50,  and  has  paid  as  damages  for  filling  in  front 
of  property  above  Canal  Street,  $52,387.50,  to  all  of  which  has  to 
be  added  on  purchase  account  the  sum  of  $862.75  for  incidentals, 
and  $14,250  for  the  bulkhead  known  as  the  Drake  property. 

The  city  has  paid  no  other  claims  for  damages  that  I  am 
aware  of,  occasioned  by  the  widening  of  West  Street  on  North 
River  between  Canal  and  West  Eleventh  Streets.  The  damages 
claimed  by  private  parties  average  somewhere  from  about  $600  to 
$750  per  lineal  foot  of  bulkhead,  which  the  city  will,  some  day 
have  to  provide  for. 

There  are  to-day,  according  to  the  Assessment  Rolls  in  the  office 
of  the  Tax  Commissioners,  6,420  lineal  feet  of  bulkhead  on  East 
River  between  Whitehall  Street  and  the  Brooklyn  Bridge  of 
which  2,659  feet  is  private  property,  and  3,761  feet  of  similar 
property  belongs  to  the  City  of  New  York.  The  city's  valua- 
tion of  the  2,659  feet  of  private  property  is  $1,361,900,  or  a 
trifle  over  $500  per  foot.  The  city's  valuation  of  its  own  3,761 
feet  of  property  is  put  at  $3,468,000  or  a  trifle  over  $900  per  lineal 
foot,  which  is  nearly  double  that  of  private  property,  and  is 
marked  exempt  from  taxation. 

On  the  North  River,  between  the  Battery  and  West  11th 
Street,  private  owners,  according  to  the  same  rolls,  have  6,150 
lineal  feet,  and  the  city  owns  5,126  feet,  including  995  feet  of  sea 
wall,  at  the  Battery.  The  valuation  of  the  private  property  is 
$3,458,400,  or  say  about  $562  per  lineal  foot,  and  the  valuation  of 


15 


the  city's  property  is  $4,867,660,  a  trifle  over  $950  per  lineal  foot, 
which  is  nearly  double  that  of  private  property  and  of  a  precisely 
similar  class. 

The  bulkheads  on  North  and  East  Rivers  are  each  valued  on 
the  general  approximate  basis  of  $360  per  lineal  foot,  while  in 
reality  there  is  a  recognized  difference  in  their  relative  values  of  at 
least  40$  in  favor  of  North  River. 

The  new  piers  recently  built  on  North  River,  between  Canal 
and  West  10th  Streets,  where  the  street  is  already  widened  and 
paved,  are  valued  on  the  same  assessment  roll  at  about  $150,000 
each,  while  they  rent  for  830,000  and  upwards  each  per  annum, 
with  the  obligation  of  the  lessee  to  shed  and  maintain  the  piers  and 
keep  them  in  repair. 

The  city  paid  the  Inman  Line  of  Steamers  for  its  old  pier, 
above  Canal  Street,  the  sum  of  $203, 530,  and  after  widening  the 
street  180  feet  and  building  a  new  pier  and  bulkhead  at  a  cost  of 
about  $55,000  for  the  pier,  and  say  $350  per  lineal  foot  of  bulkhead — 
the  question  may  be  asked,  why  this  property  now  renting  as  it 
does  at  about  18$  on  its  actual  cost,  is  not  valued  on  the  rolls  at 
more  than  one-half  of  its  original  cost  to  the  city. 

It  goes  without  saying  that  the  permanent  improvements  of 
the  New  York  water  front  that  have  been  made  by  the  Department 
of  Docks,  have  not  been  made  with  that  economv  that  would  have 
resulted  had  the  private  owners  been  first  settled  with  by  the  city, 
amicably,  or  by  condemnation  proceedings,  as  provided  for  by 
Chapter  574  of  the  Laws  of  1871.  The  Department  of  Docks  has 
been,  heretofore,  seriously  crippled  by  the  rulings  of  the  Law  De- 
partment, but,  as  I  have  already  stated,  the  decision  in  the  Lang- 
don  case,  after  nearly  or  quite  ten  years'  litigation,  in  which  the 
city  was  overruled,  has  had  its  beneficial  results. 

However,  it  is  now  claimed  substantially,  by  the  Coun- 
sel to  the  Corporation,  that  the  city,  by  the  Dejjartment  of 
Docks,  has  the  right  to  build  bulkheads  on  land  under  water  in 
East  River,  directlv  in  front  of  bulkheads  that  have  been  built  bv 
private  owners,  under  grants  from  the  City  of  New  York,  with 
rights  to  collect  wharfage  "  forever,"  and  to  cut  off  the  private 
owners  from  their  rights  and  privileges  of  wharfage,  without  com- 


16 


pensation,  even  where  the  grantees  and  their  successors  in  title  have 
built  and  maintained  the  bulkheads  and  piers,  and  collected  wharf- 
age from  them  for  over  seventy-five  years.  The  Counsel  to  the 
Corporation  has  admitted,  however,  that  as  long  as  the  bulkheads 
and  piers  belonging  to  private  owners  remain  as  they  do  to-day,  the 
private  owner's  right  to  enjoy  the  wharfage  and  other  emoluments 
cannot  be  interfered  with,  but  nevertheless  claims  that  the  city  can 
at  any  time,  build  in  front  of  the  private  bulkheads  and  cut  off 
access  to  them  and  to  the  piers,  and  totally  destroy  their  business. 
This  opinion  is  reiterated,  notwithstanding  the  contrary  doctrine 
is  laid  down  by  the  Court  of  Appeals,  in  the  case  of  Langdon  v. 
The  Mayor,  etc. 

I  have,  after  extensive  research,  and  with  considerable 
care,  ascertained  an  approximation  to  the  probable  cost  of  improv- 
ing the  water  front  from  West  11th  Street  to  the  Battery,  and 
from  Whitehall  Street  to  Brooklyn  Bridge,  including  the  purchase 
of  private  property,  and  that  which  has  already  been  improved. 


NORTH  RIVER 


From  the  Battery,  Pier  1,  to  West  Eleventh  Street,  10,800  ft. 

Of  which,  approximately,  there  is 

City  property   4,600  feet. 

Private  property   6,200    "   10,800  " 

Cost  of  widening  West  Street  180  feet,  so  as  to  make 
it  250  feet  wide  when  finished,  building  bulkhead 
and  filling  in  and  paving,  or  10,800  feet  at  $350 

per  lineal  foot   $3,780,000 

Building  47  piers  at  an  average  cost  of  $50,000  per 

pier  '   2,350,000 

To  re-imburse  private  owners  for  say  6,200  feet  at 

say  $650  per  lineal  foot   4,030,000 

To  pay  for  25  piers  belonging  to  private  parties  at 

$150,000  each   3,750,000 


Total  for  improvements  on  North  River. .  $13,910,000 


17 


EAST  RIVER, 


From  Whitehall  Street  to  Brooklyn  Bridge  ; . . .  6,411  ft 

Approximately,  private  property  2,658  feet. 

city  "      ....3,753    "   6,411" 

Cost  of  widening  South  Street  130  feet,  to  make  it 
200  feet  wide,  building  bulkhead,  filling  in  and 

paving  same,  say  6,411  feet  at  $300  per  lineal  ft.,  81,923,300 

Building  24  piers  averaging  $50,000  each,  say   1,200,000 

To  re-imburse  private  owners  for  2,658  lineal  feet  of 

bulkhead,  including  piers  at  §1,000  per  foot   2,658,000 

Total  for  improvements  on  East  Eiver 

below  the  Brooklyn  Bridge   $5,781,300 

RECAPITULATION. 

For  improvements  on  property  on  North  River,  in- 
cluding purchase  of  private  property   $13,910,000 

For  improvements  on  East  River,  including  purchase 

of  private  property   5,781,300 

Total  between  West  Eleventh  Street  and 

Brooklyn  Bridge  7   $19,691,300 

2,000,000 

From  which  deduct  permanent  improvements  already 

indicated/fetc,  leaves  a  total  of   $17,691,300 


One  of  the  piers  recently  built  on  North  River  was  rented  two 
years  ago  at  auction  at  §70,000  per  annum  :  other  new  piers  above 
and  below  No.  37  are  rented  for  $30,000  per  annum.  All  these 
rentals  are  in  addition  to  shedding,  repairs  and  maintenance  at  the 
expense  of  the  lessee. 

All  of  these  rentals  are  too  high  ;  any  rental  above  $25,000  is 
an  unwarranted  tax  upon  shipping  ;  but  what  relief  can  the  Dock 
Department  give  to  commerce  as  long  as  so  many  technical  legal 
difficulties  are  interposed,  preventing  its  acquisition  of  private  pier 
or  wharf  rights  ? 


18 


If  the  city  had  acquired  the  private  property  on  the  water 
front  on  North  and  East  Rivers,  authorized  by  Chapter  574  of  the 
Laws  of  1871,  and  rented  the  47  piers  on  North  River  at  say  an 
average  of  $25,000  each,  that  rental  would  have  produced  a  revenue 

of   $1,175,000 

Rent  of  bulkheads  on  North  River,  say,  250,000 
24  piers  on  E.  River,  say  at  $20,000  each,  480,000 

Rent  of  bulkheads  on  East  River,  say,  50,000  $1,955,000 

or,  say  a  total  income  of  10  per  cent,  on  the  purchase  of  private 
property,  and  the  cost  of  improvements  between  West  Eleventh 
Street,  North  River  and  Brooklyn  Bridge,  East  River. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir, 
#With  great  respect, 

Yours  truly, 

SIMON  STEVENS. 


Y 


1  f 


